BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 274
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 18, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
SB 274 (Leno) - As Amended: May 14, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 28-11
SUBJECT : Family Law: Parentage
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A COURT BE PERMITTED TO FIND THAT A CHILD HAS
MORE THAN TWO LEGAL PARENTS IN THE VERY LIMITED INSTANCE WHERE
MORE THAN TWO INDIVIDUALS MEET THE EXISTING STANDARD TO BE THE
CHILD'S LEGAL PARENTS AND NOT DOING SO WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO
THE CHILD?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Legal parenthood can be established in a number of different
ways, and as a result, in limited situations it is possible for
more than two people to claim legal parentage of a child. The
Family Code provides that where two or more presumptions of
paternity arise that are in conflict with each other, the
presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier
considerations of policy and logic controls. A recent Court of
Appeal court held that when more than two people meet the legal
definition of a parent, a court may recognize only two of them
as legal parents. (In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197.)
This bill, sponsored by Children's Advocacy Institute and
National Center for Lesbian Rights, instead provides that where
there are more than two people who have established claims or
presumptions of parentage under existing California law, the
court may recognize more than two parents if the court finds
that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the
child. This bill is very similar to, though more narrowly
tailored than, last year's SB 1476 (Leno), which passed the
Legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor because of concern
of possible unintended consequences. The governor requested
additional time to consider all the implications of the bill.
This bill is supported by the California Judges Association,
LGBT organizations, children's advocacy groups and some family
law practitioners, who write that the bill "protects children
SB 274
Page 2
from harm by preserving the bonds between children and their
parents, rather than preventing courts from recognizing that
children may sometimes have more than two parents where severing
one of these bonds would be detrimental to the child.
Recognition of legal parenthood also gives the child the right
to support from all her parents, as well as access to health
insurance, benefits, and inheritance rights." Other family law
practitioners, while supportive of the bill's intentions, oppose
it, arguing that it could harm children who may be pawns in
their parents' feuds: "It does not take much to understand how
much worse such conflict would be for the child with three
adults, let alone four or more. Our focus is the child. It
appears the bill's focus is really the adults who feel they
should be able to acquire the label/title of "parent." . . . SB
274 proposes what is arguable a virtual 'sea change' in our
culture as to the role of a parent and the resulting
expectations." However, this bill, by its very terms, focuses
specifically on the interests of the child, by allowing for
recognition of more than two parents only if a court finds that
recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child.
SUMMARY : Permits a court, in appropriate cases, to find that a
child has more than two legal parents. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that nothing in the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA)
should be construed to preclude a finding that a child has a
parent-child relationship with more than two parents.
Provides that every reference to parent in statutes,
regulations, rules, policies and case law shall be interpreted
to apply to every parent of a child who is found to have more
than two parents.
2)Unless a court orders otherwise, provides that a presumption
of paternity is rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity
by another person.
3)Provides that, in an appropriate action, a court may find that
more than two persons with a claim for parentage are parents
if the court finds that recognizing only two parents would be
detrimental to the child. In determining detriment, requires
the court to consider all relevant factors, including the harm
of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent
who has fulfilled the child's physical and psychological needs
for a substantial period of time. Provides that a finding of
SB 274
Page 3
detriment to the child does not require a finding of unfitness
of any person.
4)Provides that in any case where a child has more than two
legal parents, the court shall allocate custody and visitation
among the parents based on the best interest of the child,
including, but not limited to addressing the child's need for
continuity and stability by preserving established patterns of
care and emotional bonds. States that the court may order
that not all parents share legal or physical custody of the
child, if the court finds that would not be in the child's
best interest, as provided.
5)Provides that the statewide, uniform child support guideline
applies in any case in which a child has more than two legal
parents, and the court shall apply the guideline by dividing
the child support obligations among the parents based on
income and the amount of time each parent spends with the
child, as provided. Permits the presumption that the
guideline is correct to be rebutted if the court finds that
application of the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate
due to special circumstances, as provided. In that case,
requires the court to divide the child support obligations
among the parents in a manner that is just and appropriate
based on income and time spent with the child.
6)Provides that # 5), above, shall not be construed to require
reprogramming of the California Child Support Automation
System, a change in the child support guideline, or a revision
in any Department of Child Support Services' regulations,
policies, procedures, forms or training materials.
7)Permits the termination of parental duties and
responsibilities for existing parents of a child to be adopted
to be waived by agreement of the existing parents and the
prospective adoptive parents.
8)Makes the following legislative findings:
a) Most children have two parents, but in rare cases
children may have more than two people who are that child's
parent in every way. Separating a child from a parent has
a devastating psychological and emotional impact on the
child and courts must protect children from this harm.
b) The purposes of the bill is to abrogate the holding in
SB 274
Page 4
In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197, insofar as that case
held that when more than two people claim parentage under
the UPA, courts are prohibited from recognizing more than
two of these people as parents.
c) This bill does not change the requirements for
establishing parentage under the UPA.
d) It is the intent of the Legislature that this bill only
apply in rare cases where a child truly has more than two
parents.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the California UPA. Defines a parent and child
relationship as the legal relationship existing between a
child and the child's natural or adoptive parents incident to
which the law confers or imposes rights, privileges, duties
and obligations. The term includes the mother and child
relationship and the father and child relationship. (Family
Code Section 7600 et seq. Unless stated otherwise, all
further statutory references are to that code.)
2)Provides that the child of a wife who is living with her
husband, who is not sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a
child of the marriage, except as provided. (Sections
7540-41.)
3)Defines a man as a presumed father if, among other things:
(a) He was married to the child's mother and the child was
born within 300 days of the marriage; (b) he attempted to
marry the child's mother; or (c) he holds the child out as his
own. Requires that these presumptions be applied gender
neutrally. (Section 7611; Elisa B. V. Superior Court (2005)
37 Cal.4th 108.)
4)If two or more paternity presumptions conflict with one
another, the presumption that is founded on the weightier
considerations of policy and logic controls. Provides that a
presumption of parentage under Section 7611 is rebutted by a
judgment establishing paternity of the child by another
person. (Section 7612.)
5)Provides that paternity may be established by voluntary
declaration for unmarried parents, or through a civil action
brought by any interested party, as specified. (Sections
7630, 7570 et seq.)
SB 274
Page 5
6)Provides that domestic partners have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations and duties under law as are
granted to and imposed on spouses. (Section 297.5.)
7)Provides that a parent and child relationship between the
child and the mother may be established by proof of her having
given birth to the child. Provides that a parent and child
relationship between the child and an adopted parent may be
established by proof of adoption. (Section 7610.)
8)Outlines factors the court shall consider in determining the
best interest of the child, including, among others, the
health, safety, and welfare of the child; any history of abuse
by one parent or any other person seeking custody against
another child, the other parent, a spouse or significant
other; the nature and amount of contact the child has with
both parents; and any other factors the court finds relevant.
(Section 3011.)
9)Provides that custody of a child should be granted in the
following order of preference: to parents jointly; to either
parent taking into consideration which parent is more likely
to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the
noncustodial parent; to the person in whose home the child has
been living in a wholesome and stable environment. Allows the
court and the family the widest discretion to choose a
parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child.
(Section 3040.)
10)Provides a formula for calculating child support, and
provides a rebuttable presumption that the formula results in
a correct amount. This presumption can be rebutted by, among
other factors, the fact that application of the formula would
be unjust or inappropriate due to special circumstances.
(Section 4053 et seq.)
COMMENTS : Legal parenthood can be established in a number of
different ways. A man is conclusively presumed to be the father
of a child if he was married to, or in a registered domestic
partnership with, and cohabitating with the child's mother,
except as specified. A man who receives a child into his home
and holds the child out as his own is also presumed a father of
the child. A man who signs a voluntary declaration of paternity
SB 274
Page 6
is presumed to be the legal father of a child. While the
statutory scheme uses the word "father," the presumptions must
be applied gender neutrally, so they apply to mothers as well,
see, e.g., Elisa B. V. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108, and
the Committee's AB 1403 (Judiciary), now with the Senate
Judiciary Committee, does just that.
Because of the presumptions of paternity available under law, it
is possible, in very limited situations, for more than two
people to claim parentage of a child. The Family Code provides
that where two or more presumptions arise that are in conflict
with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded
on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls.
In 2011 a Court of Appeal held that when two or more people meet
the legal definition of a parent, a court may recognize only two
of them as legal parents. (In re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th
197.)
This bill instead provides that where there are more than two
people who have established claims or presumptions of parentage
under existing California law, the court may recognize more than
two parents, but only if it would be detrimental to the child
not to do so. In support of this bill, the author writes:
SB 274 protects children from harm by preserving the bonds
between children and their parents, rather than preventing
courts from recognizing that children may sometimes have
more than two parents where severing one of these bonds
would be detrimental to the child. Recognition of legal
parenthood also gives the child the right to support from
all her parents, as well as access to health insurance,
benefits, and inheritance rights. Recognizing these
families can also reduce the state's financial
responsibility for the child because all parents have the
obligation to support the child. In dependency actions, if
a child has more than two parents, legal acknowledgment of
more than two of those parents may keep the child out of
foster care by giving the court more options for placement.
. . .
Preventing courts from ever recognizing that a child has
more than two parents can have disastrous emotional,
psychological, and financial consequences for a child, who
may be separated from one or both of the parents he or she
has always known. . . .
SB 274
Page 7
SB 274 . . . gives courts the flexibility they need to
protect the interests of children who truly have more than
two parents. It only applies if there are more than two
people who have claims to legal parentage under existing
law and the court finds that not recognizing more than two
parents would be detrimental to the child. The bill would
not apply to a boyfriend or girlfriend of a parent who has
been in the child's life for a short time, or to a relative
caregiver who provides periodic care. Rather, it only
provides that where there are more than two people who have
an otherwise valid legal claim to parentage under existing
California parentage law, the court can, but is not
required to, recognize more than two people as legal
parents of the child if it would otherwise be detrimental
to the child.
Establishing Parentage Under the Uniform Parentage Act : The UPA
was passed in 1975 to extend the parent and child relationship
equally to every child and to every parent, regardless of the
marital status of the parents. The UPA defines "parent and
child relationship" as "the legal relationship existing between
a child and the child's natural or adoptive parents incident to
which the law confers or imposes rights, privileges, duties, and
obligations." The term includes both mother and child, and
father and child relationships. Insofar as practical, the UPA
is to be interpreted to apply to both father-child and
mother-child relationships.
In 2005, the California Supreme Court found a parent-child
relationship in a trio of cases involving same-sex parents, one
with a genetic link to the child and two without. In one case,
a woman provided the ova to the other woman who gave birth to
twins who were to be raised in the women's joint home. (K.M. v.
E.G. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 130.) In another case, the court
established parentage for a woman who had neither genetic link
nor given birth to twins, but who received the children into her
home and held them out as her own. (Elisa B. v. Superior Court
(2005) 37 Cal.4th 108.) In the third case, a couple had secured
a judgment that they were the only legal parents of a child who
was born to and had a genetic link to one of the women. The
court estopped that woman from disavowing the validity of the
judgment to which she had stipulated, thus recognizing the
parentage of the other woman who had neither given birth to, nor
had a genetic link to, the child. (Kristine H. v. Lisa R.
SB 274
Page 8
(2005) 37 Cal.4th 156.) None of these cases involved the
possibility of more than two parents.
A Court of Appeals Refused to Recognize More Than Two Parents,
but Invited the Legislature to Do So . The need for greater
flexibility in the number of legal parents was clarified in In
re M.C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 197. In that case, a juvenile
court found that three parents were a child's presumed parents -
the biological mother, the child's presumed mother, by virtue of
her marriage to the biological mother, and the biological
father, who conceived the child with the biological mother
during a premarital relationship. The child was in foster care
as a result of the biological mother's involvement in the
stabbing of the child's presumed mother. The juvenile court
recognized all three parents, hoping to place the child with the
father, but the court of appeals reversed, potentially depriving
the child of a loving father, writing that such recognition
lies, more appropriately, with the Legislature:
M.C. and the amicus curiae invite us to employ this case as
a vehicle to highlight the inadequacies of the antiquated
UPA to accommodate rapidly changing familial structures and
the need to recognize and accommodate novel parenting
relationships. We agree these issues are critical, and
California's existing statutory framework is ill equipped
to resolve them. But even if the extremely unusual factual
circumstances of this unfortunate case made it an
appropriate action in which to take on such complex
practical, political and social matters, we would not be
free to do so. Such important policy determinations, which
will profoundly impact families, children and society, are
best left to the Legislature. (Id. at 214.)
Other States, and Even California, Have Recognized More Than Two
Parents in Specific Situations : Currently, several states have
recognized that there are situations where a child can have more
than two people in his or her life with the rights and
responsibilities of parents. In 2007 a Pennsylvania court
upheld an award of partial custody to a biological mother's
same-sex partner, with partial custody to the biological mother
and sperm donor, who had been involved as a parent since
infancy. The court held that all three had an obligation to
support the child. (Jacob v. Shultz-Jacob 923 A.2d 473 (Pa.
Super. 2007).) A Maine court found that a child may have a
non-biological, de facto parent with parental rights and
SB 274
Page 9
responsibilities in addition to two biological parents. (C.E.W.
v. D.E.W. (Me. 2004) 845 A.2d 1146, 1149-51.) A Delaware
statute recognizes three types of legal parents: a natural
parent, an adoptive parent, and a de facto parent. Under
Delaware code, a de facto parent is a person who, with the
support and consent of the child's parent or parents, fostered a
parent-like relationship with the child, exercised parental
responsibility for the child, and acted in a parental role for a
length of time sufficient to have established a bonded and
dependent relationship with the child that is parental in
nature. (Del. Title 13, Sec. 8-201.) Similarly, the District
of Columbia recognizes that a de facto parent has the same
rights and responsibilities of parents. (DC ST Sec. 16-831.01.)
Finally, Louisiana specifically recognizes situations of dual
paternity, thus giving parental responsibilities to three
parents, the mother, the presumed father based on marriage and
the biological father. (See Smith v. Cole (1989 La.) 553 So.2d
847.) Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, California is
required to honor the acts and judicial proceedings of the
courts of these other states. As a result, California courts
will eventually have to recognize court orders with more than
two parents.
Additionally, California law now recognizes tribal customary
adoption, which can permit a child to have four parents. In an
aim to protect both Native American children and their interests
in having tribal membership and legal connections to the tribal
community, tribal customary adoption provides that parents'
rights need not be terminated upon adoption of the child.
Accordingly, a Native American child may have up to four legal
parents - two natural parents and two adoptive ones.
While cases involving more than two parents are, almost by
definition, complicated and will require courts to balance many
competing interests, courts must already do so today. This bill
simply expands this, in very narrow situations when necessary to
prevent detriment to the child.
The opposition raises concern about the lack of an upper limit
on the number of parents permitted under the bill, but the
number of cases affected by this bill - and the number of
parents that may be recognized in any particular case - is
extremely limited by the provisions of the bill itself . The
Association of Family Conciliation Courts, one of the bill's
opponents, is concerned that, while the bill has been revised to
SB 274
Page 10
"narrow and limit the number [of parents that a child may have]
to some degree[,] there is nothing in the statute which would
prohibit the courts from allowing more than three 'parents' for
a child, whether at the same time or at separate periods in the
child's life." This bill, however, does not change existing law
as to who may be a presumed parent. To be found a parent under
the bill, a person must qualify as a presumed parent under
existing law. Most stepparents and boyfriends or girlfriends
will not meet the requirement that they not only take the child
into their home, but also hold the child out as their own. That
second part requires telling friends, family and officials that
the child is their own - not their step-child, not their
girlfriend's child, but their own child.
Additionally, existing law anticipates the situation where two
or more presumptions of paternity conflict under the Family
Code, and provides the following guidance: the presumption which
on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of
policy and logic controls. Courts therefore, under current law,
apply a critical analysis to situations where more than two
presumptions exist. This bill does not limit that analysis. It
simply allows courts the flexibility to find that more than one
presumed parent can be a parent.
The bill is even more limiting. It is not enough to qualify as
a presumed parent. Last year's SB 1476 would have authorized a
court to find more than two parents if "required to serve the
best interests of the child." Stakeholders, however, raised the
concern that it may not be clear to courts whether to apply a
standard "best interests" analysis or the heightened, "as
required to serve the best interests" analysis. This bill now
requires that when more than two people have a claim to
parentage the court may only grant parentage to more than two
parents if the court finds that recognizing only two parents
would be detrimental to the child. In determining detriment,
the court is required to consider all relevant factors,
including the harm of removing the child from a stable placement
with a parent who has fulfilled the child's physical and
psychological needs for a substantial period of time. No other
parentage determination considers the child's needs. The other
determinations are all based on the presumed parent's actions.
This bill puts the interest of the child above all else.
Lastly, the bill states the clear legislative intent that it be
applied only in rare cases where a child truly has more than two
SB 274
Page 11
parents. This clear statement of legislative intent will
provide guidance to courts regarding the limited reach of the
bill and the very small number of cases that will meet the legal
requirements for more than two parents.
Bill Addresses Family Law Concerns : While more than two parents
may be highly desirable in a dependency case, where more loving
parents may help keep a child out of a group home or other
foster care placement, multiple parents in a family law
proceeding, where warring parents are fighting for custody,
could be more troublesome. This bill addresses that concern in
two ways. First, as discussed above, it allows a court to
recognize more than two parents only when it would be
detrimental to the child not to do so. The bill provides courts
with guidance on finding such detriment, by requiring the court
to consider all relevant factors, including the harm of removing
the child from a stable placement with a parent who has
fulfilled the child's physical and psychological needs for a
substantial period of time.
Second, this bill recognizes that concern and provides that the
child's best interest, including the need for stability for the
child, must guide custody determinations. Moreover, the bill
specifically states that not all parents may share legal or
physical custody of the child. While this is true in all
custody cases, this statement should provide guidance to family
courts to ensure that the child has stability and that if legal
or physical custody is shared with too many parents, such
stability may be lacking.
Clarification regarding termination of parental rights : This
bill also codifies the holding in Sharron S. v. Superior Court
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 417 that allowed second parent adoptions. A
second parent adoption is a procedure where a second parent
adopts the child without terminating the rights of the existing
parent, similar to a stepparent adoption. Sharon S. held that
when a birth mother's partner sought to become a second parent
through adoption, the parties may waive the termination of the
existing parent's rights under Family Code Section 8617. This
bill simply codifies that holding and applies it to situations
where the child may have more than two parents.
Child Support Guideline Calculation : It is anticipated that
cases with more than two parents will be extremely rare and very
fact specific, and thus can be calculated outside of the
SB 274
Page 12
statewide guideline. This bill provides for that flexibility by
specifically permitting a departure from the child support
guideline in these cases. However, this bill still requires
that a guideline calculation be completed prior to departing
from the guideline, as required by federal law. To do so, the
guideline can be run in a multi-step process that involves first
calculating all parents' net income, then running the guideline
program with the high earner as one parent and the income and
time share of remaining parents combined as the other parent in
the program. The process is then repeated for the remaining
parents (with the highest earner excluded), with the highest
earner of that smaller group listed as the high earner and the
parents remaining as the other parent (with time shares adjusted
appropriately). While this may be cumbersome, it,
notwithstanding opponent's arguments to the contrary, produces a
child support award using the guideline and ensures that
California is in compliance with federal requirements.
Similar Bill Vetoed Last Year : Last year a similar bill, SB
1476 (Leno) passed the Legislature, but was vetoed by the
Governor, who wrote: "I am sympathetic to the author's interest
in protecting children. But I am troubled by the fact that some
family law specialists believe the bill's ambiguities may have
unintended consequences. I would like to take more time to
consider all of the implications of this change." The author
and the sponsors have worked with family law attorneys over the
last year to tighten the bill and limit any ambiguities of the
bill. Significantly, this bill now provides that all of the
rights and responsibilities of parentage arising under state
law, administrative regulations, court rules, government
policies, common law, and any other provision or source of
existing law apply equally to every legal parent where a child
is found to have more than two parents. Thus, this bill
clarifies that any source of existing law that is worded to
apply to only two parents must be applied equally to more than
two parents.
Additionally, the bill tightens provisions and provides guidance
to courts in finding whether a child has more than two parents,
and in awarding custody, visitation, and support in the event
that the court has made that finding.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters include the California Judges
Association, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Northern
California Chapter, Children's Advocacy Institute, the National
SB 274
Page 13
Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality California, and Legal
Services for Children. In support of the bill, supporters
write:
While most children have at most two parents in their
lives, some children have more than two people who act as
parents in every way. Courts face a diversity of family
circumstances, but state law has not adapted to the reality
of those circumstances. For example, state law has been
interpreted to prevent courts from ever recognizing more
than two people as a child's parents. This inflexibility
can have disastrous emotional, psychological, and financial
consequences for a child who is separated from a loved one
he or she has always known as a parent. Courts need more
tools to protect the best interests of children.
SB 274 protects children by recognizing the bonds they
share with their parents and the legal and emotional
security those bonds provide. Recognizing legal parenthood
gives a child the right to support from his or her parents,
reduces the state's financial responsibility for the child,
and keeps children out of foster care by giving courts more
options for placement. Likewise, if a family is in
distress, otherwise legally valid parental relationships
should not be artificially severed and the already-at-risk
child should not be placed in foster care when there is a
legally satisfying alternative: another parent available to
care for the child.
SB 274 is particularly important to the LGBT community
because of how LGBT people become parents and build
families, which can involve any combination of blending
families, adoption, fostering and assisted reproduction.
On occasion, this can be present situations where
recognizing more than two legal parents is the best way to
protect the best interest of the children involved and
their relationships with the people they have always known
as their parents.
SB 274 does not change the definition of parenthood, or
allow temporary caretakers to be considered parents. It
merely provides that when evidence shows that more than two
people meet the existing legal definition of a child's
parent, the court may recognize those individuals and their
legal obligations if recognizing only two parents would be
SB 274
Page 14
detrimental to the child.
Adds the Children's Advocacy Institute: "Children need parents,
period. If what we as a society care about when adjudicating
parentage is honoring the bonds that bind children and their
parents, ensuring the child stays out of foster care, and - most
of all - conforming our laws and legal processes to what is
'required to serve the best interest of children,' then our laws
should not arbitrarily prevent judges from being able to use
their judgment."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Capitol Resource Institute writes
in opposition: "Children thrive in consistent settings and in
homes with their biological mother and father, or with adoptive
parents, being male and female role models. This bill only
serves to appease the adults and would cause chaos in the life
of the child."
The Association of Family Conciliation Courts - California
(AFCC) begins their opposition by noting the author's and
sponsors' efforts to address AFCC's concerns from the previous
year and agrees that "the language in the bill is much improved
over that of last year's bill." That being said, AFCC is still
strongly opposed to the bill. The organization writes:
We know how much a child can be, and often is, impacted by
the conflict among the adults. We know how bad that
conflict can be with only two parents . . . .
It does not take much to understand how much worse such
conflict would be for the child with three adults, let
alone four or more. Our focus is the child. It appears
the bill's focus is really the adults who feel they should
be able to acquire the label/title of "parent." . . . SB
274 proposes what is arguable a virtual "sea change" in our
culture as to the role of a parent and the resulting
expectations. . . .
We are convinced that this bill will be used primarily by
heterosexual adults, mainly stepparents and grandparents.
This bill is not just about handling current consensual
situations, but represents a change in the legal landscape
of "parenthood" and people's expectations and legal
opportunities. . . .
SB 274
Page 15
Children do not need the conflict that often results when
two parents separate and disagree. They certainly do not
need the conflict exponentially enhanced/increased as
adults vie for a portion of their time and attention.
Children are entitled to spend a good portion of their time
with friends, at school and should not have to worry about
having their time shared with multiple (as in three or
more) adults who cannot agree on who the child should be
with, what the child should be doing, where the child goes
to school, what sports, what religion, etc.
The author responds that far from being a "sea change" in family
law, this bill "provides a limited approach to allow courts to
recognize children who have more than two parents only when
needed to protect a child from harm." In addition he notes
that, this bill is not focused on protecting the rights of the
adults, but "to the contrary, it is focused on the needs of
children and may only be applied when necessary to protect a
child from detriment."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Children's Advocacy Institute (co-sponsor)
National Center for Lesbian Rights (co-sponsor)
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Northern California
Chapter
Equality California
California Judges Association
Juvenile Court Judges of California
Legal Services for Children
Our Family Coalition
Public Counsel
Some individuals
Opposition
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts -- California
Capitol Resource Institute
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
SB 274
Page 16